(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)

Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada

Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 3:40 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
50th Anniversary of the Japan-US Security Arrangements
US-North Korea Consultations
The North Korean Issues: The Abduction Issue
The Incident of a Stray Shot by the US Military
A Chinese Human Rights Activist
Assistance to Afghanistan
The Investigation into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements
The Status of Forces Agreement

1. The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Concerning the relocation of Futenma Air Station, you have been saying that “it is preferable for us to come to a conclusion by the end of the year.” At the press conference in Naha City, you also said, “I cannot say with absolute confidence how much of our bilateral relationship of trust will be maintained in the event that the Japan-US agreement is not implemented as the United States has planned. I have a strong sense of crisis regarding the current state of the Japan-US alliance.” To put it the other way around, do you mean that there is no way to maintain the relationship of trust with the US other than to implement the Japan-US agreement?

Minister:
That is not necessarily what I meant, as you would see if you read the press conference transcript. I have repeatedly said that “within the year is preferable,” but I have also been saying that “the ultimate decision will be made by the Prime Minister.” As the Prime Minister has been saying, on the one hand we must consider the feelings of the people in Okinawa and the three-party coalition, and on the other hand we must consider the Japan-US agreement. We must seek a solution that fulfill these needs in a comprehensive way. That is why we are holding various discussions everyday.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Shimbun):
Setting aside the outcome or conclusion of the Futenma issue, as you have frequently said in your press conferences including the one in Okinawa, I think the Futenma issue could be a turning point for the current Japan-US relationship in a way, in that its conclusion will possibly make the bilateral relationship difficult or more difficult. I understand that your statements in Okinawa indicate your understanding that this situation must be navigated toward an agreeable solution using all available means. The US side does not want to destroy the Japan-US relationship either, but wants to navigate through this situation. Could you please tell us how, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, you are going to intensify the Japan-US relationship and advance discussions with the US going forward? I mean in a variety of way, not just limited to Futenma. I would appreciate it if you could at least make some general statements.

Minister:
Right now, we have the issue of Futenma before us, which is an extremely big issue. Other than that, I do not think there is any problem between Japan and the US that causes concern or is extremely difficult to address. Therefore, I think we must sit down to overcome this Futenma issue.

Question (Sato, Tokyo Shimbun):
The Prime Minister has revealed his intention to hold a bilateral summit meeting with President Obama during the leaders’ meeting at COP15 in order to discuss the issue of Futenma. Could you please tell us the current state of arrangement and the possibility of holding the meeting?

Minister:
As far as I understand it, the Prime Minister said that he wants to see if he could “meet” President Obama at the venue for COP15, but I do not think he went as far as saying “hold a meeting.” To begin with, since both leaders will be working under a tight schedule, I do not think they can spare too much time talking about an issue other than global warming. That said, in response to your question, my comment on the news article posted today is that there is no significant difference of understanding between the Prime Minister and I right now. I would like to say that we are discussing the issue within the same scope more or less.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
A few days ago in Okinawa you said, “I have a strong sense of crisis regarding the Japan-US alliance,” and now you have just said, “There is no significant difference of understanding between the Prime Minister and I.” Does this mean that your sense of crisis has changed as a result of talking with the Prime Minister in the past few days after returning from Okinawa? Or do you still have a strong sense of crisis about the Japan-US alliance?

Minister:
I have continuously had this sense of crisis from the past.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
So it is not the case that your sense of crisis has been weakened somewhat as a result of talking with the Prime Minister?

Minister:
There is no change in my perception.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
As you are on the frontline of diplomacy, being in contact with the authorities of the US side, you must be directly feeling pressure from the US side, or feel the intensity of their demands. Could you please explain to us in your own words, without any hearsay, how strong the US demands to implement the plan as agreed are? I have heard that US Ambassador to Japan John V. Roos yelled at you until his face turned red on December 4. Also, Michael Green (Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)) and Richard Armitage (former Assistant Secretary of State) visited Japan recently, and footage from the symposium they attended, in which they went as far as saying, “The Japan-US alliance will be irreversibly damaged if the originally agreed upon plan for relocation to Henoko is not implemented,” has been repeatedly broadcasted on television. Even Japanese newspapers and other media outlets are saying things almost every day such as, “If the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) decides to abandon the Henoko plan of the original Japan-US agreement, Japan will be in major trouble.” Hearing all of this, the people of Japan are feeling immensely anxious. Honestly, how risky it is to the Japan-US alliance if Japan does not fully accept the US side’s requests, which hinge on the ideas that an agreement will be reached within the year and that the agreement will specify Henoko? Could you please explain about this directly to the people?

Minister:
To start with, the US side is not pressuring us at all. Nevertheless, from my experience as a politician, I have a sense of crisis that if we fail to address this issue in a substantial manner it could irreversibly damage our relationship of trust with the US, which would have a serious consequence for both sides. The news report you mentioned described my discussion with Ambassador Roos as if the reporter had witnessed it, but what was said is entirely fictitious. Of course Ambassador Roos undoubtedly stated his opinions, but he was not in rage nor did he yell at us. That part of the report was absolutely false. There was only me, Defense Minister Kitazawa, Ambassador Roos, and an interpreter at the meeting, so I wonder what this report was based on. Although I am not sure about Mr. Armitage’s case, I know that Dr. Green has made rather harsh statements about this issue. I think this is natural given his Republican affiliation. Although Dr. Green did not say so, when I met people affiliated with the Democratic Party yesterday, I heard that there were various kinds of people in the US, among there which are certain people who desire to spoil the Japan-US relationship by slandering the DPJ and the Democratic Party, and this results in a variety of opinions. It is no surprise that there are diverse opinions within the US, it is the same for Japanese politics. I think what matters is how seriously you take each of these statements.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Do you mean that the report about Ambassador Roos yelling at you was false?

Minister:
There is no truth to the statement that he yelled at me.

Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
You have just said that there is no significant difference of understanding between you and the Prime Minister. Can I confirm that your stance is, “a conclusion within this year is preferable, and the Japan-US agreement must be implemented”?

Minister:
No, my stance is, “a conclusion within this year is preferable, but the Prime Minister will ultimately make the decision.” I have not necessarily said that the implementation of the Japan-US agreement is preferable. All I have said is that there is a significant weight to the agreement between the two governments.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
Continuing on the Futenma issue, Prime Minister Hatoyama has said that every possibility is still open to consideration, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirano has also stated that the Prime Minister will himself explain to the US side that he intends to seek other relocation sites besides Henoko. Although the verification process of the working group is in progress and has yet to reach a conclusion, will it consider every option at this stage? Or will the options be considered after the current verification process? Is the integration plan with Kadena Airbase gone, or is it still on the table?

Minister:
As I said before, according to what I confirmed with the Prime Minister after the Cabinet Meeting, he has not made any instruction about seeking out other options. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has been saying from before that every possible option must be considered, and I think what the Prime Minister means is that this stance has not changed. I think the statement has been quoted out of context. Concerning the Kadena Plan, we have been examining if it is possible. The working group has not been dissolved, and its final conclusion has yet to be decided.

Question (Murao, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Concerning the Futenma issue, I hear you had a meeting with the Prime Minister and the ministers concerned this afternoon. I think the discussion is still in progress, but one of those attending the meeting said something like, “we have a clearer sense of direction.” Could you please tell us if the discussion will continue for some time, and by what time a conclusion will be made?

Minister:
I can only say that we will conclude the discussion as early as possible. However, among the members, Defense Minister Kitazawa has already left for Guam and the Prime Minister will set off to Indonesia soon. Meetings will not be held for the time being. We may meet again this week if necessary, but we have not settled on anything specifically. Both yesterday and today the relevant ministers were in general agreement regarding the direction in which the discussion should proceed. That said, this issue involves the US side, and as I have said previously in reference to “the three issues,” we must make further effort to seek a solution that satisfies the two parties in the coalition as well as the US.

Question (Aizawa, NHK):
Last week, Diet members from the ruling parties, the Japanese Communist Party, and other parties held a meeting where they talked about litigation in a trial in the US which claims that “the coast off of Henoko is inhabited by Dugong.” Concerting this litigation, an intermediate verdict was handed last year, which stated that constructing a new base in Henoko is illegal under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of the United States. Does the current verification process on the Japan-US agreement take this litigation into consideration? Also, there is a view that this verdict could be used to stop the construction of base in Henoko. Do you think this litigation will influence the Government’s decision in any way?

Minister:
I am aware of the Dugong litigation. However, since the trial is still in process and no final verdict has been announced, I will refrain from making any particular comments.

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
Regardless of whether he can talk with President Obama at COP15, the Prime Minister intends to clarify the Japanese government’s policy on Futenma and seek the understanding of the United States. I think you are in a position to tell this to the US side. In what way are you going to communicate this? Do you intend to tell them at a meeting of the working group or are you thinking of having a telephone conference, or something like this?

Minister:
Hasn’t the Prime Minister said that he will tell President Obama personally when he meets him?

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
I think he said “by then.”

Minister:
I am not aware of him saying this.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Seiji Maehara, speaking on the possibility of deploying Osprey aircrafts in Henoko under the leadership of US forces, indicated the absence of an environmental impact study. And because of that, Minister Maehara argues, the Henoko plan would not necessarily accelerate the decision-making process as the US claims. Do the four ministers, including the Prime Minister, share, for example, the same understanding that the Henoko plan would not necessarily accelerate the decision-making process?

Minister:
We have not discussed this.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
The best scenario would be to find an answer to this simultaneous equation that is acceptable to all three parties: the coalition parties, Okinawa, and the United States. But there is also a possibility of such an answer not being found. If the answer is to force Okinawa to shoulder more burdens, in other words, if the Henoko plan is to be adopted, how will you persuade Okinawa to not obstruct the start of construction work? You cannot start construction without permission from the head of the local government. Without permission, you would have no way but to commence construction forcefully by, for example, enacting a special measure law. If that is also not possible, construction may be stalled for decades to come. Considering this, some are concerned that the Henoko plan may not be realistic. What do you think?

Minister:
Your question is based on assumptions, so I do not think I need to make a comment. We seek to reach a plan that is more or less acceptable to the three parties.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
You said that the working group has not reached a conclusion on the Kadena consolidation plan and that the working group has not dissolved yet. What are the criteria for convening meetings of the working group? Will the working group come to a conclusion?

Minister:
No decision has made yet to dissolve the working group, so the working group has not been dissolved yet. We have to monitor the situation in order to make a decision on the activities of the working group going forward. The future of the working group is something that should be discussed after the direction in which the Japanese government will proceed is made clear.

Question (Nezu, NHK):
You said that the relevant ministers are in general agreement on the direction in which the discussion should proceed. When you mentioned the direction in which the discussion should proceed, did you mean that the ministers are in general agreement on the time frame for making a conclusion? Or did you mean that the ministers are in general agreement on where Futenma Air Station should be relocated to?

Minister:
I will refrain from making any comments so as not to disclose the content of discussion.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You said that the future of the working group remains to be seen. Does that mean there is no plan to decide the Japanese government’s policy expeditiously so that Japan and the United States may resume discussion? My understanding was that the working group would help the Japanese government to determine the way forward, by verifying and reaching conclusions on the reasons why the current plan specifies Henoko. What is your true intention? Are you saying that you have no idea as to what is going to happen because the working group no longer functions adequately? Or do you wish to formulate a new policy as soon as possible to allow Japan and the United States to resume discussion?

Minister:
Your assumption or understanding of the purpose of the working group seems inaccurate. The working group is tasked with verifying the background against which the current agreement to relocate Futenma Air Station to Henoko was made. It is with this purpose that the working group has conducted various discussions. The Kadena consolidation plan is one of the plans examined in this process. If a direction is identified as a result of discussions within the government, the issue may no longer require the working group’s discussion. We do not know yet. At this moment, I cannot speak of what is going to happen in the future, because it all depends on a direction which is yet to be decided. The working group is not a place to discuss any kind of matter.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
The direction in which the discussion should proceed is agreed upon. Is that correct?

Minister:
It is generally agreed upon.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
That was what I was to ask, but I would like to know if the discussion is in its final stage? Or will it take more time to reach a conclusion?

Minister:
It is safer for me not to make any comments, because various matters are being subjected to discussion now and there may be new elements to factor in going forward. We are discussing the issues earnestly, with the determination to unfailingly identify a direction for the issue.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
In your answer to a previous question, you expressed the view that you have not necessarily completely abandoned the Kadena plan. On the other hand, virtually all major newspapers reported that upon your visit to Okinawa you abandoned the Kadena consolidation plan. Although I could confirm your remarks in the press conference by watching YouTube or through other media, could you please tell us once again if the Kadena plan is still effective or if you really abandoned it?

Minister:
To begin with, whether I abandoned the plan or not is not relevant, given that the plan is currently being discussed by the working group. It is inaccurate to say that I have abandoned the plan. I am aware that various difficult issues facing the plan have been pointed out in the working group’s discussion. The working group has not yet been dissolved and the discussion is on going; it is not the case that a conclusion was made in the middle of discussion to exclude one plan and leave the others.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
So you did not abandon the plan?

Minister:
It is not true to say that I abandoned the plan. The plan is facing various difficult issues, as I have been saying. Specifically, a substantial amount of base functions would need to be relocated in order to reduce the noise level. I fully understand that it is no easy task to accomplish this in a short time.

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
Going back to our previous discussion on the working group, you said that the working group is tasked with verifying the background against which the current agreement to relocate to Henoko was made, and I assume that this is why Japan and the United States decided to establish the working group. That was the situation as of November. If you judge now in December that verification is no longer necessary, I can only surmise that this is probably because something has changed. What has changed?

Minister:
I have not said once that verification is no longer necessary.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Let me go back to the very first question that I asked. You said that you have a strong sense of crisis about the current status of the Japan-US alliance, which I think is a very strong expression considering the long history of the Japan-US alliance from World War II onward. Could you please tell us of any specific US moves which have caused you to develop your sense of crisis?

Minister:
I have developed my feeling based on my political career over the past 20 years.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Does the discussion on whether or not to accept the current plan constitute the only reason for developing your sense of crisis?

Minister:
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that an alliance must be managed carefully based on a relationship of trust. This is something which should not be shaken but is somewhat shaking now. My conviction has absolutely nothing to do with the remarks by some people seeking to undermine the Obama Administration or the Hatoyama Administration.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
I need to confirm once again about the working group. I think the overall policy is for the Prime Minister to make a decision on the Futenma issue based on the conclusion that the working group will make. Is your current understanding that the situation has changed to one in which the Japanese government will make a decision regardless of the conclusion of the working group?

Minister:
Not necessarily. We are carrying out discussions at the working group. At the same time, we must take into account the coalition parties’ views. Some have started to call for the postponement of decision-making, and others seek alternative plans. These matters go beyond the control of the working group. Therefore, we will suspend the working group’s activities and see if the situation will require the resumption of discussion by the working group. That is where we stand now.

2. 50th Anniversary of the Japan-US Security Arrangements

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
You have been saying from before that you would like to make efforts so that the Japan-US Alliance can be deepened further and made sustainable for 30 or 50 years. An agreement was made to take action to this effect at the ministerial level for the 50th anniversary coming up next year. If the Futenma issue is not resolved this time, what kind of impact do you think it will have on these actions? Has the US side conveyed any concerns about this?

Minister:
First of all, the US side has not conveyed anything. Additionally, I do not want to respond to any hypothetical discussion of “if the Futenma issue is not resolved.” However, I will say that I would like to deepen the relationship of trust by firmly resolving the issues at hand and conducting thorough fundamental discussions.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
Regarding new consultations toward next year’s 50th anniversary of the Japan-US Security Arrangements, you just stated that “the US side has not conveyed anything.” However, there have been some news reports that during a meeting of the Futenma working group the US side conveyed its intention to postpone consultations. Please tell us the truth of this matter.

Minister:
I do not recall this. However, I, myself, feel it is not suitable in the current situation. I do not feel like bringing myself to enter into discussions on the 50th anniversary of the Japan-US Security Arrangements or the future role of the Japan-US Alliance without having resolved the Futenma issue properly.

3. US-North Korea Consultations

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
I have a question about the US-North Korea consultations. Today US special envoy Stephen Bosworth headed to Pyongyang, and the first US-North Korea consultations of the Obama Administration will soon begin. Please tell us how this information was communicated to the Japanese Government and what commitment the government intends to make regarding the consultations.

Minister:
It would depend on your definition of the word “commitment.” Naturally, the Japanese Government does not have any commitments to consultations between the United States and North Korea. That is something that is between the United States and North Korea. The United States is conducting consultations with North Korea based on the premise of the Six-Party Talks. We have confirmed this stance of the United States and we believe that North Korea will eventually return to the Six-Party Talks. As for cooperation between Japan and the United States for Special Envoy Bosworth’s visit to North Korea, or for information exchanges, arrangements have been in place between the two countries from the past.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
Is it correct to understand that information on this came directly from the United States?

Minister:
I will not confirm any details.

4. The North Korean Issues: The Abduction Issue

Question (Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun):
At the UN Human Rights Council, North Korea stated its position that the abduction issue has already been resolved. What is your opinion on this statement by North Korea despite of the agreement last year at the Japan-North Korea consultations to reinvestigate the abduction issue?

Minister:
This is a clear violation of the agreement of August of last year and is completely unacceptable. I believe there is an issue with the level of the person who made this statement yesterday as well. From Japan’s perspective, the agreement reached last August is of course still valid and we believe it should be implemented as soon as possible.

5. The Incident of a Stray Shot by the US Military

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
December 10 marks one year since a stray bullet was found in Igei-ku, Kanetake-cho, Okinawa. Since the incident, prefectural police have been allowed into the military base for an investigation. After a year of investigation, the probability of the stray bullet coming from exercises conducted by the US military remains high and the local community is calling for an improvement of the situation. The US side is maintaining its position that the date the stray bullet was found is inconsistent with the dates military exercises were performed and that the bullet did not come from a military exercise. One year has gone by without seeing a conclusion to this incident. The investigation aside, what is your opinion regarding the US government’s and US military’s treatment of this issue considering that it remains unsolved after one year.

Minister:
I think it is unfortunate that a year has passed without the incident being resolved. During my visit to Okinawa, I received an explanation on this from the US military. Physically, the distance from the base to where the bullet was found was at the maximum range for a bullet to fly. The US side has conducted various examinations with experts called from the United States, and came to the conclusion that there is hardly any possibility that the bullet came from a military exercise. That said, it is a fact that a bullet was lodged into a license plate, and while we do not know who did this, if it is something for which the facts can be made clear, I would like the US side to make efforts toward solving the issue. After the explanation, I met Mayor of Kin, Tsuyoshi Gibu, and we discussed various things. I also had an inspection tour of Range 4, which has been closed to prevent similar incidents in the future. After listening to various opinions, I believe that further efforts are needed to ensure that the lives of the people of Igei and Okinawa are not adversely affected.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
You just stated that you would like the US side to make efforts on this. Is this something that you conveyed directly during your exchanges with the US military?

Minister:
This was at a gathering about safety issues as a whole, and so I did make various requests regarding the efforts of the US, such as the closure of Range 4.

6. A Chinese Human Rights Activist

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
My question is on behalf of our users. A Chinese human rights activist, Mr. Feng Zhenghu has been refused regarding-entry into his homeland of China and has been camping out in one of the terminals at Narita Airport demanding his right to return home for more than a month now. Do you have any plans to do something about this matter?

Minister:
I’m sorry, I am not aware of this matter. I would first like to look into the facts.

7. Assistance to Afghanistan

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
Regarding concrete measures to be taken for civilian assistance in Afghanistan, there were media reports stating that the government is considering assistance centering on an initiative to develop the Kabul metropolitan area. This will be a huge project, with even just part of the infrastructure providing employment for 250,000 people as well as employment for former Taliban soldiers. With the safety situation deteriorating, what is your opinion regarding the timing of the actual implementation of this assistance as well as the pros and cons of implementation.

Minister:
I have seen the reports. This assistance is already taking place. This is, in a sense, assistance to expand further on something that has already been implemented to a great extent. Currently, no serious problems have emerged regarding its progress. It would be more accurate to consider this as one aspect of assistance to Afghanistan not as the entirety of assistance to Afghanistan.

8. The Investigation into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
In response to a question I posed at the previous press conference, you stated that you would confirm the matter. To follow up on this, I would like to ask my question again. In relation to the investigation of the secret agreements at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance Hirohisa Fujii made some positive remarks and you said that you would confirm what his intentions were. If you have, please tell us about it.

Minister:
I have not confirmed anything yet. The investigation on the so-called secret agreements being conducted by Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not at a stage for me to make any comments yet. It is too soon to single out a section of the investigation and ask for concrete cooperation from the Ministry of Finance or the Minister of Finance. There may be some time in the future when such a request will become necessary, but I am not considering it at this time. However, watching the news on television, I saw that Mr. Hajime Morita, secretary to former Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira has been saying many things. Whether there are documents at the Ministry of Finance that support what he says remains to be seen. At the moment, I cannot make requests to other ministries when our own investigation has not yet been completed, but there may come a time when I request cooperation.

9. The Status of Forces Agreement

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
My questions is about the incident where children of US military personnel strung a rope across a street in Musashimurayama City causing a Japanese woman on a moped to fall and hurt herself severely. It seems that there was a lapse of time from the point the arrest warrants were issued until the arrests were made, and there have been voices pointing out that it was due to the Status of Forces Agreement. In your opinion, do you think that the conditions of the current Status of Forces Agreement were problems or obstacles in this case?

Minister:
I do not see it in this light. The Status of Forces Agreement only applies to military personnel and does not extend to their dependents, so I do not think of this as an issue stemming from the Status of Forces Agreement.

Back to Index